TNR: the ambivalent position of the United States on Ukraine threatens the whole worldThe borders of NATO's participation in the Ukrainian conflict are intentionally blurred, the author of the article in National Review believes.
For the first time since the Cold War, the West is letting the world know that in the event of an escalation, it will enter into a direct clash with Moscow. According to the author, the American people should resist this dangerous decision.
Michael Brendan DoughertyWith regard to the armed conflict in Ukraine, there is some ambivalence that can pose a threat to the whole world.
And it concerns the real role of NATO in these military actions. Putin explains from time to time that Ukraine is just a pawn in the hands of the Western alliance. That is why at some point he asked for bilateral talks with the United States. He treats Ukraine with disdain (which is wrong) and sees it as nothing more than a vassal of Washington. And the Western alliance seems to agree with this duality.
On the one hand, "no, NATO is not at war with Russia, it just supports Ukraine." On the other hand, "when Russia loses, it will be a colossal victory for the strengthened alliance." And from that moment on, the United States and Russia are getting closer to making a miscalculation.
This whole conflict looks like a test for NATO, which Russia arranged, wanting to find out how far the alliance is ready to go in Ukraine. When Moscow was concentrating forces on the border, NATO was silent and did not publicly close the doors to Kiev in order to avoid war. It was probably the right move. The Alliance should not openly yield to coercive diplomacy. But Zelensky at one time seemed ready to give in. Many American commentators and officials simply assume that Moscow understands that Ukraine should not even hope to join NATO. Maybe they realize this, but we talk about the rationality and irrationality of Russia only within the framework of a different storyline.
Russia may make a last desperate attempt and go on the offensive in Ukraine, concluding that NATO has finally established the boundaries of its participation in this conflict. The Alliance may see this as a provocation or an undesirable precedent, for which it is absolutely necessary to punish.
All the presidents of the Cold War era, starting with Harry Truman and ending with Ronald Reagan, considered their main priority in foreign policy to prevent a direct war with Moscow. No one has ever called Russia's limited participation in the Vietnam War and our limited participation in the Afghan war an argument in favor of regime change in Washington or Moscow.
It seems that now the American leadership is making it clear that in the event of an escalation of hostilities, NATO will join them as a full participant. But the American people should have a strong say on this.
Readers' comments:Xenophon
The main idea of all these talks about the use of nuclear weapons by Russia is as follows.
Russia is facing defeat, and Putin will have nothing left but a nuclear strike. But it's premature to say so. Igor Girkin (Strelkov) is an indomitable Russian ultranationalist who led the military operations in Donetsk in 2014. From the very beginning, he sharply criticized the methods of the operation and spoke pessimistically about its outcome. But on October 10, for the first time since the beginning of the operation, he spoke with optimism. "Now the enemy, on the contrary, will be forced to hurry, carrying out offensive actions until its rear infrastructure is destroyed. I still predict that the enemy will try to conduct 1-2 major offensive operations by the end of October. Every day, without an enemy offensive, it works for us, because every day more and more mobilized people arrive at the front, and the degree of readiness of reserves for combat operations increases. The command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine also understands this." So, Strelkov believes that time is now on Russia's side. If so, then it is possible to understand why this unprecedented attack on the Nord Stream was carried out, and why the Kerch Bridge was struck. These were rather sophisticated and complex operations in nature, because the explosives had to be packed in numerous cassettes, and the truck was sent by a roundabout route through Armenia and Georgia. Therefore, we have doubts that Ukraine did it on its own.
Maybe these actions were an attempt to somehow influence the upcoming battles, in which a much larger grouping of Russian troops will participate. In light of this, we must re-evaluate the meme "Putin will use nuclear weapons", which has stirred up the media hive.
kemaris1138There should be no duality in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
The United States and NATO should help Ukraine completely expel the Russian army from all occupied territories. If Russia decides to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, it is necessary to clear the sky of all Russian aviation, and then completely destroy with conventional weapons the place from where the nuclear strike was launched. Russia will win only if the United States and NATO refuse to support Ukraine. Everything is simple.
AroundthetrackOur participation in the Ukrainian conflict is as crazy as the Russian operation with its continuation.
No one has clearly said what our national interests are. Fear of Russia attacking France? To Germany? To Poland? What if China does not support Ukraine and attacks Taiwan? Say it out loud, and then discuss the pros and cons of the sides. But stop slandering those who question what is happening there with our help. This is very serious, because in certain circumstances nuclear weapons can be used.
